Liberals suddenly feeling sorry for the rich?

This here is an almost useless article on tax reform.  Its main example:

James Ledoux, a computer programmer who lives in South Orange with his veterinarian wife and their toddler and is expecting a second child, said he now has $46,000 in itemized deductions – around $19,500 from property taxes, $7,000 in state income taxes and the rest from mortgage interest.

The man estimates that he will pay $4,000 more in taxes because he loses itemized deductions, but somehow the reporters decide not to tell us how much he makes, how much in federal taxes he pays now, and how much he would pay in the future.  We do know he lives in a $630,000 house.  Should he really live in that expensive a house if a $333 increase per month would price him out?

My guess is that he makes at least $150,000 to $200,000 to afford a $630,000 house, which would put him in the top 10% of earners in the U.S.  I thought that is the sort of person Democrats target, so why would so many people try to protect him? 

I would ask Mr. Ledoux if he believes that people who make less than he does in other states and in New Jersey should pay more than he does to subsidize him living in an expensive house.  Most of the people in the U.S live in houses that cost less than $150,000, especially in small and medium-size towns, so why should they pay more?

Also, does Mr. Ledoux believe that people who pay rent of $3,000 per month in New Jersey should get zero deductions while he gets substantial deductions while building wealth?

Republicans have made a good start in getting rid of the socialization of the tax code by getting rid of deductions and some credits.  (It is very good that they got rid of the $7,500 electric credit so rich people could buy Teslas to pretend they care from billionaire Elon Musk.)  They are very limited on what they can do because somehow, the CBO always does static analysis despite cuts in the past yielding substantially more revenue to the government.

The economy will be much more efficient and productive if everyone isn't trying to beat the tax man. 

Maybe high-tax states will have to be more prudent. 

I am truly astonished and embarrassed that so many politicians and others in the U.S believe they are entitled to so much of other people's money they didn't earn.

I am also amazed that AP writers would take the time to write the article without telling exactly what the person would pay before and after...unless the purpose is just to trash the plan.  I also wonder why they would give the example of such a privileged person instead of someone in the middle class.  I personally have a problem feeling sorry for the computer programmer and veterinarian.

This here is an almost useless article on tax reform.  Its main example:

James Ledoux, a computer programmer who lives in South Orange with his veterinarian wife and their toddler and is expecting a second child, said he now has $46,000 in itemized deductions – around $19,500 from property taxes, $7,000 in state income taxes and the rest from mortgage interest.

The man estimates that he will pay $4,000 more in taxes because he loses itemized deductions, but somehow the reporters decide not to tell us how much he makes, how much in federal taxes he pays now, and how much he would pay in the future.  We do know he lives in a $630,000 house.  Should he really live in that expensive a house if a $333 increase per month would price him out?

My guess is that he makes at least $150,000 to $200,000 to afford a $630,000 house, which would put him in the top 10% of earners in the U.S.  I thought that is the sort of person Democrats target, so why would so many people try to protect him? 

I would ask Mr. Ledoux if he believes that people who make less than he does in other states and in New Jersey should pay more than he does to subsidize him living in an expensive house.  Most of the people in the U.S live in houses that cost less than $150,000, especially in small and medium-size towns, so why should they pay more?

Also, does Mr. Ledoux believe that people who pay rent of $3,000 per month in New Jersey should get zero deductions while he gets substantial deductions while building wealth?

Republicans have made a good start in getting rid of the socialization of the tax code by getting rid of deductions and some credits.  (It is very good that they got rid of the $7,500 electric credit so rich people could buy Teslas to pretend they care from billionaire Elon Musk.)  They are very limited on what they can do because somehow, the CBO always does static analysis despite cuts in the past yielding substantially more revenue to the government.

The economy will be much more efficient and productive if everyone isn't trying to beat the tax man. 

Maybe high-tax states will have to be more prudent. 

I am truly astonished and embarrassed that so many politicians and others in the U.S believe they are entitled to so much of other people's money they didn't earn.

I am also amazed that AP writers would take the time to write the article without telling exactly what the person would pay before and after...unless the purpose is just to trash the plan.  I also wonder why they would give the example of such a privileged person instead of someone in the middle class.  I personally have a problem feeling sorry for the computer programmer and veterinarian.

RECENT VIDEOS